Since the 1960s, the capability of
humans to change and deteriorate their own natural environments, even on a
global scale, has become increasingly perceptible and problematic. Causes for
the real and potential risks and threats of what has come to be conceived of
as a global environmental crisis are, on the one hand, technological and
socio-cultural developments in modern industrial societies, and, on the other
hand, population dynamics and development options in the countries of the
so-called third world. These causes point to a close connection between the
global environmental crisis and a developmental crisis, in which modern
concepts of 'development' and 'progress' have become dubious in 'developing'
as well as in 'developed' countries. In this context, both environmental
relations of modern societies as well as their relations to non-modern,
'traditional' groups are called into question. In this regard, the global
environmental and developmental crisis not only threatens the wellbeing of
present and future human populations, but also reflects a crisis of
modernity. In this crisis, the relations of the culture of modernity towards
'nature' and the 'traditional' - the two constitutive 'Others' of modernity -
have become problematic and need to be reconsidered.

Tropical forests, deforestation, and
the loss of biological diversity do play an important role in scientific and political
debates, as well as public perceptions of the global environmental crisis. A
dominant approach to tackle these problems, since the end of the 19th
century, has been the demarcation of protected areas for the protection of
'nature'. Frequently, the remaining 'natural' areas suitable for nature
conservation are, at the same time, living spaces of non-modern peoples.
Conflicts between conservation interests and ideologies on the one hand, and
local interests of 'indigenous' or 'traditional' people living in or using
resources from these areas on the other hand, often have resulted in the
eviction of people from protected areas. The 'classical' modern concept of
protected areas is based on ideas of an inherent antagonism between human
exploitation of natural resources and the conservation of nature. In the
context of the modernisation paradigm, the rise in population and poverty -
supposed to be characteristic for non-modern, 'traditional' groups -, as well
as the aspired modernisation of these groups, jeopardises the natural
resources and the biodiversity of their 'natural' living places. In this
framing of the problem, to protect 'nature' requires the removal of people
out of areas designated for nature conservation. Only if non-modern people
are virtually identified with 'nature' or assumed to be close to it they may
qualify to remain in protected areas - provided they are not striving for
'development' -, even becoming themselves worthy of preservation.

The poor balance of this 'classical'
approach to preserve nature in protected areas, resistance from affected
local people, as well as a growing awareness for the rights of the people
living in or close to protected areas have induced a revision of this
approach since the 1980s. In the international discourses on protected areas,
a new utility-oriented approach has gained rather broad acceptance which is
based on a conservation strategy that takes into account the interests of
local populations in resources and services of protected areas and areas close
to it.

In practice, the establishment and
management of protected areas is often far away from the standards of this
revised protected area concept, and, specifically in third world countries,
is predominantly closer to the 'classical' model. Furthermore, the new
utility-oriented conservation approach has not only provoked a
counter-movement within the conservation community, but also has to confront
a critical localist approach to nature conservation in the context of the
globalisation discourse since the 1990s. In this perspective, the utility
oriented new conservation approach is part of a dominant globalist management
strategy finally leading to the expropriation and incapacitation of local
people. In alternative localist approaches, local resource control and
self-determination are crucial elements towards the global environmental
crisis and problems of identity and justice encountered in the processes of
globalisation.

Research area and problem

Against this background, the study
is concerned with the conflicts and debates involving local communities of
the Karen ethnic minority group living in the Wildlife Sanctuary and World
Heritage Site Thung Yai Naresuan in Western Thailand. It analyses the social
organization and transformations of several Karen villages in Thung Yai
with a focus on their forest and land use system, in the context of the
political conflict concerning these villages and the debate on 'people and
forests' in Thailand and globally. However, this research not only explores
the concrete local case of conflict within its encompassing national and
international contexts of deforestation, nature conservation, indigenous
rights, etc., but also intends to reflect this conflict and the research on
it with regard to the self-conceptualisation of modern science and my own
cultural context, the culture of modernity.

The Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife
Sanctuary was established in 1974. It extends along the Thai-Burmese border
north of Sangklaburi in the province of Kanchanaburi on an area covering some 3600 km². In 1991,
it was declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO together with the adjacent
Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary. The two sanctuaries form the core of the
so called 'Western Forest Complex' (WFC), constituting Thailand's largest remaining
forest area of about 18,700 km². The WFC is composed of several wildlife
sanctuaries and national parks and is of considerable importance with respect
to forest and wildlife conservation in Thailand and mainland Southeast Asia,
as well as for global biodiversity conservation.

People of the Karen ethnic minority
group have been living in the area now designated a World Heritage Site for
at least 200 years. The immigration of Karen people into mainland Southeast
Asia is estimated to have occurred in the first millennium AD and preceded
the arrival of ethnic Burmese and Tai people in Southeast Asia. Historically,
the Three Pagodas Pass in the Southwest of Thung Yai has been an important
link between the states of Burma and Siam. The territorial incorporation of
the Thung Yai area into the Siamese (Thai) state occurred towards the end of
the 19th century. All the villages in the Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife
Sanctuary have been established in their present location before the
designation of the sanctuary in 1974. Some of them do have a history of more
than a hundred years at the same place.

Until today, the Karen in Thung Yai
predominantly grow rice on swidden fields for
subsistence needs supplemented by rice grown on paddy fields. Their
traditional rotational swidden system, under a communal resource management
regime, relies on short cultivation periods - generally 1 year - and long
fallow periods from 7-15 (and more) years. Besides different varieties of
rice, a great variety of other crops is grown on the swidden fields and
fallow areas.

Since the establishment of the
sanctuary, the resettlement of the Karen has been discussed and villages have
been removed by state authorities at different times. Specifically with the
declaration as a World Heritage Site, the remaining Karen villages became a
political issue. Their livelihoods and existence in the sanctuary are very
much at risk. The legal status of their villages is ambiguous regarding Thai
legislation, while the Royal Forest Department (RFD) and politicians
frequently request their resettlement and impose restrictions on their
traditional land use system. Since 1999, the situation of the Karen in the
sanctuary has worsened once again, as the RFD and the Military are trying to
induce them to resettle 'voluntarily' using violence and terror. At the same
time, within the present discourse on 'people and forests' in Thailand, the
Karen in Thung Yai are quoted for the position that human forest use and
conservation of forests may well go hand in hand.

Objectives and research questions of
the study

This Ph.D. project originated within
the DFG Graduate College Socio-Economics of Forest Use in the Tropics and
Subtropics. This research focused on processes of local change within the
Karen communities, as well as on the political conflicts regarding the
villages in the sanctuary. Both aspects only become comprehensible within the
broader context of national and international processes of modernisation and
environmental discourse. The dynamic cultural identity of the Karen in Thung
Yai, which is essentially related to their specific place of living, is
crucial for their adaptability towards these external changes and challenges,
but also for their resistance towards the threats regarding their existence
in Thung Yai.

The research project was aimed to:

gather
and analyse data on the organisation and dynamics of the Karen villages
in the Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary with a focus on their
forest and land use,

gain
insights into the dynamics of the relation of humans and forests
regarding economic, social, and cognitive aspects of forest use and
conservation,

contribute to the discourse on
sustainable forest use and development in Thailand and on a global
level, specifically regarding the debate on 'people and forests' and the
participation of local people in natural resource management and
conservation.

General questions guiding the
research have been:

How
did the forest and land use of the Karen in Thung Yai change within the
last decades?

How
is their forest and land use organised presently in the context of the
economic, social and cognitive organisation of the households and
communities?

Which
dynamics and trends of their forest and land use are perceivable and
what are the factors determining them?

Who
are the stakeholders, what are their interests, and what may be the
consequences of this complex web of stakeholders and interests for the
objectives and future of the sanctuary?

What are the impacts of the
political argument over resettlement, and the national and international
debate on 'people and forests' on the Karen people living in the
sanctuary?

Approach and methods

The complex character of these
questions required a comprehensive analytical framework facilitating the
description and analysis of Karen forest and land use in the context of their
own cultural system, as well as in its interdependence with their broader
'natural' and 'socio-cultural' environments.
The analytical levels range from the individuals, households and communities
up to the regional, national and international level, with an emphasis on the
household and community level regarding data coverage and analysis.
The methodological approach of a complex contextualisation relies on a
variety of methods and triangulation to try to access the complexity of
actors and relations.
Data have been gathered in a comprehensive household survey in the nine
villages of the western part of the sanctuary, using a standardised
questionnaire. Semistructured interviews on
specific topics were also conducted and participant observation was used to
get familiar with everyday life and problems in the villages, to reveal
important aspects and factors, and to validate data gathered with the
questionnaire. On the regional and national level, representatives of
government agencies and NGOs were interviewed. Aerial photographs were used
to validate the mapping of the land use system carried out by local people.

Results and conclusions

Karen people, with their
'traditional' way of life and specifically their forest and land use system,
have shaped and helped to maintain what has become a
Wildlife Sanctuary and a World Heritage Site with its rich floral, faunal,
and ecosystem diversity. Population growth and their established swidden
system are not the main problems regarding the resources and conservation
objectives of the sanctuary, and can most likely be managed in the future.
Restrictions of the Royal Forest Department regarding the use of fallow areas
put at risk the subsistence oriented forest and land use system, forcing
villagers increasingly into market dependency and cash cropping. Changes of
the economic system to a more market and cash crop-oriented economy are in
varying degrees taking place in some villages and households. These changes,
propagated and supported by some government agencies and NGOs, are more
likely to be critical regarding the objectives of the sanctuary. Whereas a
minority of the villagers profits from these changes and partly appreciates
or at least is willing to adapt to the external interests and influences, the
vast majority perceives them as a threat to their traditional way of life,
their values and their homeland which they consider crucial to their
identity.

Presently, the most important
threats to the sanctuary stem from external interests such as:

military
plans to build roads through the sanctuary, plans to construct power
lines to villages, mining at the edge of the sanctuary,

increasing
market influences, propagation of cash crop farming and use of herbicides,

plans
to intensify tourism, autocross events in the sanctuary,

poaching,
illegal logging and plantation farming by outsiders mostly at the edge
of the sanctuary,

poorly co-ordinated and unsuitable
measures and policies of different government agencies and institutions
concerned with the sanctuary.

Resettlement of the Karen will not
support the protection of the sanctuary, but rather create disadvantages and
new problems such as:

diminishing
the bio- and ecosystem diversity within the sanctuary,

reducing
cultural diversity by destroying a local 'culture' related to its
specific environment with its rich indigenous knowledge about this
environment,

problems
to find suitable land and high costs of resettlement,

national and international public
criticism and resistance due to a lack of justification and dubious
legal grounds for resettlement.

The way the Thai state sees itself -
as expressed in its constitution and its commitment toward democracy and
human rights - rather seems to suggest a 'culture conservation approach' as
well. A solution to the 'problem' Karen in Thung Yai which does justice to
this self-conception and commitments, and is aiming to improve the
problematic relation between state agencies and Karen communities in Thung
Yai, has to seriously consider the following measures:

The
legalisation of the traditional settlement and land use areas of the
Karen in the sanctuary.

The
appreciation of the traditional forest- and land use systems of the
Karen and their integration into the conception and management of the
sanctuary.

Planning
for the area and the management of the sanctuary have to occur in close
co-ordination between involved state agencies and the local people and
have to safeguard traditional rights of the Karen.

The
Karen communities have to be represented and integrated in institutions
and processes on the regional and national level that are concerned with
and make decisions regarding the sanctuary.

The naturalisation of the Karen
in Thung Yai within the context of the Thai legislation acknowledging
their right to cultural difference and self-determination.

By means of supporting the adapted
and sustainable land use system of the Karen and mobilising their competence
and resources for the protection of the area, as well as improving the
implementation of decisions regarding the sanctuary, these measures, at the
same time, support the conservation objectives. Furthermore, they are also
suitable to strengthen the loyalty of the Karen and further their integration
into the nation state.